The selfishness of a man... - Lonesome Dove (1989) Discussion

[–] FoolishCarriage 9 years ago

Nope. One cannot prove a negative. All those people who died in the story might still have died even if Jake never existed.

You could just as easily, using your logic, argue that every single person who dies does so as a result of Call's sudden, inexplicable decision to leave Lonesome Dove for the drive North. Yes, he did so after listening to Jake. But it wasn't Jake who set them on the drive. It was Call. And Gus could have decided to stay in Texas.

The Suggs brothers and their thug, Frog, were murdering sodbusters every chance they got, Jake or no Jake.

Things happen.

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

You don't have to agree. Jake set things in motion across the board. Everyone who died did so because they were exactly where they were at the point in their story, as a direct result of Jake's actions.

It's the same with Troy. All those deaths on the heads of the one choice two people made, and out of those deaths, the two who caused it walked away.

reply

[–] FoolishCarriage 9 years ago

Well, for Troy, yes, I agree. There didn't seem to be any just desserts handed out there; but you have to admit that the gods were dipping their fingers into everybody's business and arranging things (at least in the poem). I felt sorry for Hector, and then for Achilles as well.

I always thought it odd that a guy with a cool head, like Call, suddenly takes an offhand remark from a weak character like Jake and ran with it to the extent he did. Obviously McMurtry was focusing his book on the drive, which is the whole point of the story; so something was going to have to be used as the catalyst. But it seems to me it would have made more sense for Call to simply say he'd been thinking about it for awhile, or for Gus to say he was ready for another adventure (you have to admit Gus was an adventurous man); or for the suggestion to come from someone Call or Gus respected (and that was NOT Jake). That plot device just seemed weak to me.

Jake strikes me about the same as Paris. Selfish, do-what-I-want kind of guys who don't think about repercussions. At least Jake paid for his, eventually.

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

Now this is something I can agree with.

I think it's clear to anyone who has explored McMurtry that Lonesome Dove was something of a fluke in terms of quality writing. Whether that be because Lonesome Dove was a special project/labor of love for him, or what, I don't know. I find it difficult to believe that Jake was the type of character who ever would've made that sort of arduous trek to begin with, then come back to tell the tale.

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

On all this we definitely agree. Maybe we can say this was the one flaw in MacMurtry's grand vision...at least until he agreed to write additional books surrounding this one.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

I always thought it odd that a guy with a cool head, like Call, suddenly takes an offhand remark from a weak character like Jake and ran with it to the extent he did. Obviously McMurtry was focusing his book on the drive, which is the whole point of the story; so something was going to have to be used as the catalyst. But it seems to me it would have made more sense for Call to simply say he'd been thinking about it for awhile, or for Gus to say he was ready for another adventure (you have to admit Gus was an adventurous man); or for the suggestion to come from someone Call or Gus respected (and that was NOT Jake). That plot device just seemed weak to me.

I never gave that a lot of thought before. You could definitely take it that way.

I tend to believe that even a guy with a cool head can get bored. Call and Gus had gone through a lot of adventures together. In order to be the kind of guy who would make a career out of that sort of thing, it makes sense that he would have a love of adventure somewhere....even if it's a small part of his thought process.

I was pretty convinced by the performance of Tommy Lee Jones when he was talking about wanting to do it with Gus. There was a real sense of longing in that performance. It may have been something which actually needed to be suggested by someone else for him to start thinking about it.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FoolishCarriage 9 years ago

trespalmas,

I agree that Call was restless. He probably felt there was not enough to do, and Call had to always be working. His trip to the river every night with his gun was an extension of previous behavior while he and Gus were rangers; going off by himself after supper. I believe that was his "thinking" time, and/or his planning time. He felt useful, cleaning his rifle and being on watch.

Now, Gus was well known to be lazy when he felt the situation allowed it, for sure. He was laid back; but he, too, was quick to come out of lazy mode and into full fighting mode as the situation might require.

And Gus didn't HAVE to go along with Call; not really. As he was known to say, he was the one man Woodrow didn't boss. But their partnership was strong. It was a good bet that if Woodrow decided to head north with a herd of cattle, Gus would go along.

I think Call believed that this was something worthwhile to do; another accomplishment in a long list. He could feel good about it. He could boss the boys around in a much more satisfactory manner than checking on well digging. His name would be associated with doing a necessary and brave thing; and he was well equipped to handle the dangers along the way.

And Gus would grin and climb up into his own saddle, and be just as prepared.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FoolishCarriage 9 years ago

Ha! I feel the same way! To naysayers I would announce: Gus and Call not real? Fie!!

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FoolishCarriage 8 years ago

It's quite nice to have kindred spirits in appreciation of Lonesome Dove!!


reply

[–] MAGolding (1228) 5 years ago

All those deaths were mostly on the heads of the Greeks who sailed to Troy with the purpose of capturing the city and committing a lot of atrocities and war crimes against the Trojans.

Also, the leaders of Troy could have decided to send Helen back and maybe punish Paris and that might have been enough to save Troy from invasion and eventual destruction. So the destruction of Troy is also on their heads.

And in Greek myths, Helen didn't escape with Paris. Instead, in the fall of Troy, her third husband Deiphobus battled Menelaus and Odysseus and was killed and mutilated, and then Helen returned to Sparta with Menelaus.

There are two different ancient stories about the fate of Paris. Both say that after Paris killed Achilles. the Greeks called on Philoctetes, former companion of Hercules, with the poisoned arrows of Hercules. In an archery fight with Philoctetes, Paris was struck by several poisoned arrows.

One ancient story says that Paris escaped and sent for his first wife Oenome, daughter of a river god, to heal his terrible pain caused by the blood of the Hydra poisoning the arrows. Oenome refused at first, but later changed her mind and set off to heal Paris with her supernatural skills. But she was too late, and when she reached the funeral pyre of Paris she threw herself into it to burn with his corpse.

A synopsis of the Greek epic cycle about the Trojan war says that Philoctetes killed Paris, and then Menelaus came and mutilated the corpse of Paris.

Those versions may have been the revenge fantasies of storytellers whose wives had run away with other men.

And remember that if Paris didn't choose Aphrodite and run away with Helen as Aphrodite promised him and pushed him into doing, but had chosen Athena or Hera instead, the two spurned goddesses would have raised up enemies to invade and destroy Troy and kill Paris. Troy was doomed by the decision to have Paris judge the goddesses. And my understanding of mythical chronology makes me think Paris must have been a child when the gods made him doom Troy by making the choice that mighty Zeus himself didn't dare make.

reply

[–] SwanKong 9 years ago

I blame Spoon for all deaths but Bobs, Blue Ducks and the Marshall that Blue Duck took thru the window. Spoon could of (and should of) killed the Suggs gang at the first opportunity, thus saving the sodbusters.
_____________________________________________________________

reply

[–] cmfalf 9 years ago

I have to disagree.
None of the horrors would have happened without Woodrow F. Call.
He knew it and owned up to it. ( Hell of a vision)
Jake Spoon was just one of the casualties along the way.

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

Call would never have been in that position if Spoon hadn't killed the dentist and then fled to Lonesome Dove in the first place, and Blue Duck likely would not have been caught had he not found himself in the time and place where he was captured, due to his involvements with Call's group.

All deaths, except Bob's, can be traced to Jake Spoon.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

This just reminded me of other instances of what I consider to be mis-placed blame.

Were all the deaths Jake's fault? Call's?

Or were the deaths the fault of the people who killed other people?

I've heard people blame a car owner who leaves his keys in the car and someone steals it. Well...I suppose technically you could say his act of leaving the keys in the car caused it. But I think the fault really lies with the car thief. Similar to when a cop gets the blame when someone runs from a traffic stop and kills a pedestrian. Isn't the blame really on the person who ran from the cop? Is the woman to blame when she goes jogging at night in the park and is raped?

The snakes killing the young Irishman....maybe we could blame that on Jake or Call...but Blue Duck killing someone or other people dying due to violent behavior from others doesn't really qualify in my mind. I think I'm going to blame Blue Duck for the people he killed and the Indians for shooting an arrow into Gus's leg for his death.

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

I didn't necessarily state that it was Jake's fault. I'm saying that he set all those events in motion, and that it was his diret action that placed everyone in the specific circumstances they were in, at the time they were in, when they died.

I don't need no stinking signature!

reply

[–] LesterFester 9 years ago

by SwanKong » Tue Aug 18 2015 ...I blame Spoon for all deaths...Spoon could of (and should of) killed the Suggs gang at the first opportunity, thus saving the sodbusters.

by tlw013-1 » Tue Aug 18 2015...On all this we definitely agree.

didn't necessarily state that it was Jake's fault. I'm saying that he set all those events in motion, and that it was his diret action that placed everyone in the specific circumstances they were in, at the time they were in, when they died.

What I write is based soley on the movie: I understand what you are trying to say. But in order to be consistent you have to accept Spoon's actions as portrayed and not by adding a single "should have". If you are saying that the sodbusters would not have been killed if Spoon had killed the gang then you are changing the facts as presented or wishing to. Then there are hundreds of "what-ifs" anyone could come up with.

The other deaths I agree...

" Three can keep a secret ... if two are dead "

reply

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

I didn't actually say anything about the sodbusters, myself, specifically, but here's my take on that matter: the gang was where and when they were (coming upon the sodbusters) largely because of their meeting with Spoon and their pocket game. Had Spoon not met up with the gang in the saloon then it does stand to reason their action so timeframe and possibly even their course of travel would've been altered. Sure, they likely would have encountered a different bunch of people at random times, probably killing them as well, but a lot of the actions of the yang seemed largely centered on testing Spoon and converting him from ex-Ranger to outlaw. They were very determined to get him to commit a heinous act with them and it's my opinion that Spoon's presence escalated their typical activities.

It could also be argued that the gang could have been responsible for even more deaths without Spoon though, as they may not have been caught and hanged as early as they were.

I don't need no stinking signature!

reply

[–] milo44 9 years ago

Indeed ... He was the same way in the other prequels .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

reply

[–] hafosdick 9 years ago

Hi people
We are all responsible for the choices we make and who we allow to influence us
Great display of unintended consequences though
Good intentions do not suffice
Like jake said - I never wanted to hurt nobody or words to this effect
He became a casualty of his narcissism

reply

[–] signlady 9 years ago

... Jake WAS the one who rode in after being gone for a decade and told Woodrow about Montana . . .
If he had not, Woodrow and Gus MIGHT have stayed in Lonesome Dove . . .

But I doubt it . . . because Woodrow was bored and restless -that's why Montana was a great idea to him . . . if Jake hadn't mentioned it, Woodrow would've found somewhere to go . . .

Gus told Jake - 'I wish you hadn't put all those ideas in his head - now we're all gonna suffer . . .'
Yet, he had an agenda too - an excuse go to see Claire.

So . . . regardless of what Jake did, everyone made their own decision . . . and had their own reasons for going, taking advantage of the opportunity to go in numbers . . .

I think Woodrow said 'Helluva vision' bc reviewing what all had happened on the trip was entirely different than what he hoped and imagined when he first heard about Montanta . . .

reply

[–] FoolishCarriage 9 years ago

And, I think we keep in mind a couple of things:

The characters of Gus and Call were loosely based on the real-life Oliver Loving and Charles Goodnight, respectively. Loving died the way Gus did. The person Deets was based on lived to a ripe old age, though. The novel is a showpiece of how the two main characters forged the cattle trails.

Life in those days was hard. It was dangerous. From snakebites to drownings to murderers and thieves, to heat stroke and no water and sleeping on the ground and trying to drive cattle through mesquite bushes and the dangerous weather -- death was always around the corner, for everyone. And if none of that got you; you still died anyway, sooner or later. As Gus observed, "I'God, Woodrow. It's been quite a party, ain't it?"

reply

[–] signlady 9 years ago

Foolishcarriage, so true - reminds of the movie

'A Million Ways to Die in the West'

(a movie I only watched about 15 minutes of bc of the egregious use of the F word)

But the premise was spot-on even from a humorous point of view.

When you think about how hard it was to simply survive in those days, it's a wonder anyone was able to take root.

The list of things that could kill you is about a million items long!

reply

[–] Onetrickpony-1 8 years ago

Can't rember how the book put it, but the way Tommy Lee portrayed it, was like Call was having midlife crisis. Wanted one big deed before became too old. Neither he or Gus are sprig chickens at this point, as shown when Gus got pistoff at the bartendar with picture of their youngar selves mounted on the wall behind him and still didn't recognaze them. That's why Jake's tale of the benefits of Wyoming fired Call up, he was feeling the itch as age was creeping up on him.

reply